AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

# AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M

The AMD Radeon 610M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics. The 610M is a modern 6nm integrated graphics processor from AMD’s RDNA 2.0 family, while the GTX 980M is a 28nm discrete MXM module from NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 generation. Despite the 980M being nearly eight years older, benchmark data shows it delivers dramatically higher raw performance, though the 610M counters with modern API support and far greater efficiency. The average benchmark scores tell a close story — 5444 for the 610M versus 5308 for the 980M — but that aggregate hides massive swings in individual tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M edges out the GTX 980M with an average benchmark score of 5444 versus 5308, a difference of roughly 2.5%. However, this aggregate masks the fact that the 980M wins both head-to-head tests decisively.

Q: How does the GTX 980M perform in OpenCL compared to the 610M?

A: The GTX 980M scores 23832 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 81% higher than the 610M’s 4535. This is the largest performance gap between the two GPUs in any shared benchmark.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance difference?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 980M scores 17703 versus the 610M’s 6353, giving NVIDIA a 64.1% advantage. The 610M does support Vulkan 1.4, matching the 980M in API version, but raw throughput favors the older discrete card.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Radeon 610M has a 15 W TDP, while the GTX 980M’s TDP is not listed in the data. The 610M also uses a 6nm process node versus 28nm for the 980M, indicating substantially better efficiency per watt.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The GTX 980M features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 610M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning it relies on the laptop’s main RAM.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and includes 2 ray tracing cores. The GTX 980M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) with no ray tracing hardware.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980M dominates in raw compute and legacy workload scenarios. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 23832 is more than five times the 610M’s 4535, making it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated productivity tasks that rely on OpenCL. The 980M also holds a 64.1% lead in Vulkan, which benefits gaming and compute applications using that API. With 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, the 980M has vastly more parallel hardware to throw at demanding workloads. Its 3.462 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the 610M’s 486.4 GFLOPS.

The Radeon 610M wins where modern features and efficiency matter. Its 6nm process and 15 W TDP make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the 980M’s MXM module form factor would be impractical. The 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with ray tracing cores, a feature the 980M lacks entirely. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture brings Vulkan 1.4 support, which matches the 980M’s API level despite the latter’s age. For users who prioritize portability, battery life, and access to the latest graphics features over absolute performance, the 610M is the more future-proof option.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Radeon 610M uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6nm TSMC process, with a die size of 100 mm². It’s an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the Mendocino chip, designed to share system memory and operate within tight power envelopes. The GTX 980M uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture on a 28nm TSMC process, with a massive 398 mm² die containing 5,200 million transistors. This makes the 980M’s die nearly four times larger than the 610M’s, and its transistor density of 13.1M per mm² contrasts with the 610M’s much denser modern process.

The 610M features 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, along with 2 dedicated ray tracing cores — a rarity for integrated graphics. The 980M counters with 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but has no ray tracing or tensor cores. Clock speeds also differ: the 610M runs at 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost, while the 980M operates at 1038 MHz base and 1127 MHz boost. The 610M’s higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores, but the 980M’s sheer core count wins on raw throughput.

Memory architecture is another key split. The 610M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth, while the 980M has dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 160.4 GB/s. The 980M’s memory subsystem is far more predictable and faster in practice. The 610M’s pixel rate of 7.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 15.2 GTexel/s are dwarfed by the 980M’s 72.13 GPixel/s and 108.2 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 610M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Die Size | 100 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 5,200 million |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1900 MHz | 1127 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 8 | 96 |

| ROPs | 4 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 2 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 486.4 GFLOPS | 3.462 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 7.6 GPixel/s | 72.13 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.2 GTexel/s | 108.2 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 15 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2022-09-19 | 2014-10-06 |

| Predecessor | Vega II IGP | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Navi III IGP | GeForce 10 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmark results between these GPUs tell a consistent story of NVIDIA dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23832 against the 610M’s 4535, a delta of -81% from the 610M’s perspective. This means the 980M delivers over five times the OpenCL performance, a gap that reflects the vast difference in shading units (1536 versus 128) and memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus system-dependent). For any OpenCL-based compute workload — video rendering, physics simulation, or scientific calculations — the 980M is in a different league entirely.

The Geekbench Vulkan result narrows the gap somewhat but still favors NVIDIA heavily. The 980M scores 17703 versus 6353 for the 610M, a 64.1% advantage. Vulkan leverages modern driver overhead reduction, which benefits both GPUs, but the 980M’s superior fill rates and compute resources remain decisive. The 610M’s higher boost clock (1900 MHz versus 1127 MHz) and RDNA 2.0 efficiency help it close some distance, but not enough to threaten the 980M.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the GTX 980M has additional data points that the 610M lacks. In PassMark tests, the 980M scores 7338 in G3D, 2816 in GPU Compute, and 490 in G2D. Its DirectX 9 score of 125 far exceeds its DirectX 11 score of 57, and it manages 35 in DirectX 10, 31 in DirectX 12, and 649 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These results show the 980M’s relative strength in legacy DirectX 9 workloads, which is common for Maxwell-era hardware.

The average benchmark scores place both GPUs in similar percentiles — 32nd for the 610M and 31st for the 980M — indicating they occupy the same overall tier among all GPUs. The 610M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, -0.4%), AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416, +0.5%), and Radeon R7 M440 (5483, -0.7%). The 980M’s rivals include the GeForce 930A (5317, -0.2%), GeForce 840M (5322, -0.3%), and GeForce 940M (5284, +0.5%). These comparable scores suggest the 610M’s modern architecture and the 980M’s raw power land them in similar performance brackets for everyday use, despite the 980M’s overwhelming advantage in the two head-to-head tests.

The GTX 980M wins both head-to-head benchmarks, claiming 2 wins to 0 for the 610M. However, the 610M’s newer architecture, superior process node, and support for ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate make it a more versatile modern component. The 980M’s end-of-life status and 2014 release date mean it lacks the feature set required for contemporary gaming and compute APIs, even though its raw numbers remain impressive. For users needing maximum compute throughput in legacy applications, the 980M is the clear winner; for those prioritizing modern features and efficiency, the 610M holds its ground despite the benchmark losses.